Site Mobile Navigation

The Debate Was Great for Democrats, but Not for Liberals

For Democrats, last night’s debate was undoubtedly an improvement over the first. But there were at least three moments that should have upset liberals—as opposed to partisans.

Asked about gas prices, President Obama noted that oil production is up, that natural gas production is up, too, and that he, unlike his rival, has an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy. “We’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.”

When he came back to the subject a bit later, he said “we’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration” before adding that “we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.”
From a horse-race perspective, he gave a perfectly good answer. Arguably a strong one. But from the perspective of a liberal voter concerned about the environment, it was disappointing. The fact that a Democratic president, labeled a “socialist” by a hysterical right wing, felt the need to brag about drilling on public lands and increased oil production, is a testament to how little sway environmentalists have over the national conversation. If the president were anywhere near as leftist as his opponents claim, he would have said that gas prices should be high, since we need a disincentive. A true leftist would have taken the opportunity to propose a carbon tax.

While governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney actually had a more progressive take on gas prices than Mr. Obama did at the debate. “I am very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay,” he said in 2006, adding, “the appropriate action for us to take is to find ways to find fuel conservation.” He never said that high gas prices were a good thing—as Rick Santorum claimed during the primaries—but he suggested, unlike the president, that Americans should accept them.

A second good-for-Democrats, bad-for-liberals moment came when an audience member asked if the Obama administration had plans to limit the availability of assault weapons.

“We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment,” Mr. Obama started. Left unmentioned was that the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is still rather controversial among progressives. When Mr. Obama said he “believes in the Second Amendment,” did he mean that he accepts the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller that the Constitution protects an individual right to possess a firearm?

From there Mr. Obama offered a bromide, “we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got,” followed by a weak expression of desire to “get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally.” Finally he gestured toward an actual proposal, which he all-but-acknowledged he wouldn’t fight for: “part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” Anyone not hopelessly naïve should realize that seeing if we can means obviously we can’t.

But perhaps most depressing of all was what Mr. Obama said in the last two minutes of the debate, when, prompted by an audience member, he tried to debunk “the biggest misperception that the American people have” about him “as a man and a candidate.” He said, “I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer.”

Mr. Obama may have “won” the debate, but if a Democratic president is unwilling to argue forcefully that yes, of course the government can create jobs (ever heard of teachers? Or the W.P.A.?), then liberals have no reason to celebrate.